News & Analysis
- Data & Tools
- Login | Register
In <I>O’Connell v Scanlon</I>, the hearing officer has rejected an application for a declaration of invalidity of an industrial design representing “a hat with a peak and with a ‘patchwork’ design”. Among other things, the hearing officer found that the informed user would notice the use of three different types of tweed material and their placement on the flat cap.
07 April 2015
In <I>Holyrood Publications Limited v Professional Insurance Brokers Association</I>, the hearing officer has dismissed an opposition by the Professional Insurance Brokers Association against the registration of the mark THE BROKER by Holyrood Publications Limited. Among other things, the hearing officer concluded that the applicant had not applied to register THE BROKER for the sole purpose of blocking use of that term by the opponent.
25 March 2015
In <I>Razneck Limited v Dairyglen Products Limited</I>, the hearing officer has upheld oppositions against the registration of two series of MOOCH marks with regard to certain goods in Class 30 based on the opponent’s SMOOCH mark. Among other things, the hearing officer took into account that the goods were low-value items and that the average consumer would not pay much attention to the purchase of such items.
17 February 2015
In <I>MIP METRO Group v Metro International SA</I>, the hearing officer has partially upheld an opposition by the owner of the figurative mark METRO against the registration of the mark METRO GROUP. Among other things, the hearing officer found that consumers were likely to believe that the trademarks were economically linked when used for advertising services.
22 January 2015
IEDR has announced that it will enable registrars and registrants to submit Domain Name System Security Extensions data, via IEDR's online systems, in the ‘.ie’ domain name space in early 2015. IEDR first deployed DNSSEC in November 2014. The implementation of DNSSEC offers ‘.ie’ domain name holders, their customers and general internet users an additional level of security.
16 January 2015
In <I>HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company</I>, the hearing officer has revoked Dunnes’ registration for the mark BARELY THERE on the ground of non-use. Among other things, the hearing officer held that Dunnes’ argument that turnover figures were “classified business information”, and thus could not be submitted for fear of damaging its business, was “too weak an excuse”.
26 November 2014
In <I>Unilever Plc v Société Des Produits Nestlé SA</I>, the hearing officer has dismissed Nestlé’s opposition against the registration of Unilever’s mark RANDOM ACTS OF HAPPINESS. The hearing officer found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and Nestlé’s marks RANDOMS and LET YOUR RANDOM SIDE OUT.
24 October 2014
In <I>Stone Electrical Limited v British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC</I>, the hearing officer has dismissed Sky’s opposition against the registration of the figurative mark SKYVOLT in Classes 7, 9 and 37 based on its SKY marks. Among other things, the hearing officer held that the level of similarity between the parties’ marks was not sufficient to cause the relevant public to establish a link or connection in trade between the marks.
23 September 2014
In <I>Kimark v Calvin Klein Trademark Trust</I>, the hearing officer has dismissed Calvin Klein’s opposition against the registration of the figurative mark CALINKALIN, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion with the CALVIN KLEIN marks. Among other things, the hearing officer held that, while the average consumer generally has an imperfect recollection of marks, this “does not hold true for extremely well-known marks”.
10 September 2014
In <I>Buddha Brand Industry Limited v Lloyd Shoes Gmbh</I>, the hearing officer has dismissed an opposition filed by the owner of two LLOYD marks against three applications for marks including the element 'Lloyd'. The hearing officer, noting that his conclusions in this regard would set a precedent for future opposition proceedings, addressed the lack of evidence of any use put forward by the opponent in relation to its marks.
29 July 2014
Get unlimited access to all WTR content